[ Page 7849 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Seniors' security. Ms. A. Hagen –– 7849

Hon. Mr. Dueck

B.C. credit unions. Mr. Long –– 7851

Mr. Clark

Fifty years a Canadian. Mr. Mercier –– 7853

Mr. Gabelmann

Child poverty. Ms. Pullinger –– 7855

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Presenting Reports –– 7857

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 29).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 7857

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Credit Union Incorporation Act (Bill 50). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 7859

Mr. Clark

Third reading

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989 (Bill 36). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 7860

Third reading

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 1989 (Bill 38). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 7860

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Mines Act (Bill 56). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 7861

Ms. Edwards –– 7861

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 7862

Mining Right of Way Act (Bill 57). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 7862

Ms. Edwards –– 7862

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 7862

Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989 (Bill 52). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Ree –– 7862

Mr. Guno –– 7863

Hon. Mr. Ree –– 7863

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: It's a proud day for British Columbia, because we have in our presence members representing the Queensland parliamentary delegation. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Hon. Vince Lester, Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs; Hon. Norman Edward Lee; Mr. Huan Fraser; Mr. Leo Francis Gately; Mr. Gibbs; Mr. Howard Hobbs; Mr. Davis; and Mr. Mervyn Lawrence, the secretary with the group. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I ask the House to recognize this delegation and to ask them when they go home to put another shrimp on the barbie.

MR. ROSE: I was going to make a very distasteful crack about the shrimp on the front bench of the other side who made the greeting, but I won't do that. I would like to join my hon. colleague across the way in welcoming the delegation in their fact-finding mission to Canada. I hope they enjoy their trip. We made one small foray into New Zealand a few years ago. We were around Sydney and Canberra. It was such a great country, and I just can't wait to go back and see more of it. Welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery today are two friends of mine and good supporters: Art Rippen and his wife Myra Rippen. They are accompanied today by friends who are visiting from Long Island, New York: Helen and Joe Ornestein. Will the House please make them very welcome.

HON. MR. VANT: In the absence of the hon. member for Prince George South, the Minister Responsible for Environment and the Minister of State for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Strachan), it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House Mr. Bill Christie and his wife Terry, his son Jonathan and daughter Kristina. Mr. Christie is the government agent from Prince George.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader rises for a correction.

MR. ROSE: Yes, a mea culpa. My geography showed, but of course it's all Down Under to us. We met the New Zealand High Commissioner yesterday, and I think that temporarily confused me. I did mention New Zealand in connection with your country. I understand New Zealand actually is one of your states anyway.

MR. CLARK: I have the honour today of introducing some 60 grade 7 students from Grenfell Elementary in my constituency, in fact in my neighbourhood. Accompanying them are three teachers: Mr. Voth, Mr. Smith and Ms. Cooper. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SENIORS' SECURITY

MS. A. HAGEN: Yesterday was the last day of hearings of the seniors' task force which has been traveling around the province under the aegis of the Minister Responsible for Seniors (Hon. Mr. Dueck). I thought it appropriate to take a few moments today to mark that occasion. Not since the New Democratic task force on older women through 1979-81 and a follow-up federal task force in the early eighties has a political or government body gone around the province to hear directly from seniors.

I had the pleasure of attending the task force meeting in Burnaby, at which members of my own community were present, and I've also read copies of briefs that people have shared with me. I've really appreciated having that information.

The issues that have been raised at the task forces are, as is so often the case when seniors speak their mind, brief, clear, starkly honest and action -oriented. They are, I believe, the beginnings of a blueprint for government action, and without in any way assuming that what I have to say in my comments today does any justice to the breadth and depth of the work that the task force is doing in dealing with the many presentations of seniors right across the province, I do want to highlight a few aspects of their representations this morning.

First of all, they say over and over again: "Give us information." They also say very specifically that they don't want that information coming to them in warm, fuzzy, expensive advertisements. They even suspect glossy covers, as they've noted on more than one occasion. They want the information to come to them in factual, clear, bold and comprehensive forms.

Let's take the new SAFER program, an improvement on the program that has come about, I believe, as a result of the persistent lobbying of seniors and MLAs on both sides of the House. The government has announced this program in some of those warm, fuzzy ads, in small print and with no concrete information. So people don't know who's eligible. They don't know where and when they can get applications. They don't know what information they need to have in order to complete those applications. Most importantly, they don't know where to get help in completing those applications.

There are hundreds of calls coming into the SAFER office and the office for seniors, and those people, too, are not empowered, because the information has been slow in coming and it's not planned to be distributed in a way that will make it broadly accessible.

Secondly, seniors have said: "Be honest. Don't tell us that we're eligible and then disappoint us." Again I use the SAFER example. The warm, fuzzy ads say people 60 to 64 may now be eligible, and the presumption is that all people who are at the lower end of the income scale would benefit. But we find

[ Page 7850 ]

that that's not true. The people between 60 and 64 who are on GAIN — a special program for retired, chronically ill and unable-to-work people, widows and single people who are not yet eligible for old age pension — by and large will not be eligible. And those people will continue to have to pay an excessive proportion of their income toward rent. Those people haven't been treated honestly in the ads and announcements of this government, and that's not an acceptable form of behaviour for any government, especially when one is dealing with our most needy people.

Thirdly, these senior people have said: "Get going on priorities, and here are our priorities." Their priorities are that support systems in the communities be solid so they have confidence that they are going to have available to them well-trained, stable homemakers who don't change every time a month goes by, that they are going to have available to them the resources of volunteers that this government recognizes and provides some assistance to, and that they are going to see some innovation in housing and transportation that will go along with the government's downsizing of personal care facilities and their closing off of intermediate-care 1 people going into institutions. That's what they want, but they need to have the support systems in order for them to be available.

[10:15]

They want the government to stop being defensive. These people are old enough, wise enough and long-lived enough to know that nothing happens fast and that it's going to take some time. They want to be partners in the planning and development of programs. Last night we had a discussion on the seniors' advisory council in which the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) noted, when we suggested that the reports of the new council be public, and I quote his words:

"...this suggestion by the opposition members for the amendment would have the effect of emasculating the worthiness of the committee. If the committee knows that the reports and recommendations they make will be a matter of public discussion, then the committee's recommendations will be less pointed, less useful, less responsive to the needs of the community they are trying to serve."

That kind of defensive attitude, a closed-door attitude, is not acceptable in a partnership between the older community and government around developing good policies for the security and well-being of seniors. The message is loud and clear from the task force. It is, I think, incumbent now on the government to act with information, clarity, honesty and with clearly set priorities. The senior community deserves nothing less as a result of those consultations.

HON. MR. DUECK: That was a good speech. I couldn't write quickly enough, but I think if I can remember most of it, I'll go around the country using those notes, because they were more or less what we have been saying right along.

Before I get into answering some of the concerns that the member raised, I would like to say that everybody in this House wants to be a senior some day, because the alternative is not acceptable. I think you will all agree with that. Also I should say that in this province today we have roughly 360,000 people over 65, and that number is increasing dramatically. By the year 2011, we will probably have another 300,000 who are 65 and over. We believe that by that same year, the 75 and over population will increase by 73 percent, while the general population will probably increase by 23 percent. The age group of 85 and over, in that same period of time, will double. So we know that much planning has to go towards the senior population and the needs they may have.

We also know that the 13 percent who are over 65 currently consume roughly 48 percent of the total health care bill. This is no reflection on that age group. We all know that as you get older, you're bound to require more hospitalization and health care than when you are younger. When you're young, you always think that no one of that age needs any help or any care, but they do.

There was some criticism even before this task force completed its report, and I find that quite interesting. Can you imagine? We sent a task force out on seniors' issues — never before has this been done — and someone gets up the day after they've had the last meeting and says that this government doesn't listen. Well, that's exactly why we have this task force going around the province: to listen to seniors, seniors' groups or societies and whoever wished to make a presentation, come forward on all issues and let the government know what some of their concerns are.

We know how this started. In 1987, I got the mandate to be responsible for seniors. The continuing care division did a review and got much feedback, and then we had a private sector consultant look at all these various issues. Then, of course, we developed the paper "Toward a Better Age." That formed the basis for this committee to go out and talk to seniors.

We also know that a lot of the services now in the communities for seniors are good, but perhaps they have to be enhanced. I also agree that government can't really say that this is good for seniors or any segment of the society, and that's what it's going to do. We're taking the other approach and saying, "What really do you as seniors — people out there — think is appropriate for this age group?" rather than us saying: "Yes, I think you should have whatever it is."

I know that the people in Vancouver have different concerns than the people in Fort St. John. It may be transportation in some areas; it may be housing in Vancouver. It may be many things. It may be handyDART. The mandate given to me was to look at all the various ministries, and I believe there were ten or more ministries involved in giving services to seniors. It doesn't mean that funding is going to come from this ministry but that we're going to coordinate this whole seniors issue.

[ Page 7851 ]

Also in this particular responsibility, we were supposed to make an inventory of the things currently being offered to seniors. We have this book, "Services Supporting the Independence of Seniors, " and there are many issues and programs in this little book that perhaps a lot of seniors aren't even aware of. It is our job, with societies that are helping seniors, to give the information to seniors, to make them aware of the support system in place.

But I would like to talk a bit about what some seniors are doing in the communities. It is not just government doing something for seniors; it is truly seniors helping seniors, with the assistance of government wherever we can. It is not handing them money and saying, "Here's some money. Now do something with it"; it is seniors helping seniors. In the communities of Abbotsford and Clearbrook, we have for....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the minister his time is up under the standing orders.

HON. MR. DUECK: My time is up? My gosh, I just got started. I'm really sorry.

MS. A. HAGEN: First of all, I'd just like to note that my intent this morning was to mark the occasion of the last of the public hearings and provide some kind of summary of issues: information, honesty and the setting of priorities.

Let me make one comment about the booklet that the minister held up — a book about services for seniors. That booklet was included in his "Toward a Better Age, " which still had the old criteria for SAFER — the age and rent criteria. No one had thought to put a little insert into that particular pamphlet, as that information went out, as one of the means of letting people know about those changes.

That's just the point I'm making: we need to use every avenue to inform older people. We need to set priorities. In Victoria we have the Victoria Health Project, of which the minister is justly proud, with many exciting things happening. But out in the province, suffering groups with innovative ideas are struggling to keep the very services going which are being enhanced here by the Victoria Health Project The idea that we will not deal with the whole province, that we will not have dollars, projects, response and priorities for every part of the province, is out and about.

There is some crisis of confidence with a minister who is, I believe, doing his very best. The intent of my statement this morning is again to exhort him onward in his very important task. Information to seniors is vital. Regardless of what ministry the program comes out of, there is not a sign yet that this minister who is responsible for seniors understands that the information age applies to seniors as well. There's a great deal of talk about the kinds of priorities that are going to be set, but so far they are localized, and Victoria seems to be getting the lion's share of the attention.

Finally, we do not have, in any public record, an assurance that the task force report will be public. I note the minister's nod. He's stating that the report of the task force will be a public document. He is now on the public record through my opportunity to speak, since he doesn't have an opportunity to say it. Good news, and the public will appreciate that.

B.C. CREDIT UNIONS

MR. LONG: I rise today to speak about credit unions and their historical importance to the people of British Columbia. To be specific, I would like to speak about the first chartered credit union in B.C., located in Powell River. I know that over the years there's been debate over which credit union — Powell River or Burnaby South — can claim the distinction of being the first credit union in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it's Powell River.

MR. LONG: Well, I'd like to set the record straight today and put the argument to rest once and for all. I know the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) will find this information distressing, but the point has to made that the credit union with the first charter is the first credit union. This honour goes to the greatest small town in all of British Columbia, my home town, Powell River.

The Powell River Credit Union was founded 50 years ago this year by Walter Cavanagh, assisted by his local priest Father Hobson and several community-minded individuals. In 1939 when the Powell River Credit Union received its charter, Walter Cavanagh became its first president. I would like to read into the record the names of the presidents over the last 50 years: 1941, P. Carrol; 1942, R. Carlin; 1943, J. Currie; 1944, Bert Long...

MR. CLARK: Any relation?

MR. LONG: ...1945-47, Archie McPhee; 1955 — we had a little lull there — R. Bull; 1956-57, Tom Waldron; 1958, W. Graham; 1959-61, R. McDowal; to 1983, R. Hart; to 1984, D. Hart; 1985-87, Tom Belyea; and 1988-89, a good friend, Bob Gela. I take my hat off to them.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Mr. Long mentioned is my father. He was also the first secretary of the first credit union here in British Columbia.

When the founders applied to the provincial government of the day for a charter, the response from the Pattullo government was that at this time they weren't thinking of giving any charters to any other political parties. Because they had heard the words "credit union," they thought it was something to do with Social Credit from Alberta.

The group tried again with support of a government official, E.K. DeBeck, who later became inspector of credit unions. They received their charter in 1939 and became the first credit union in B.C., with a total membership of 75. On opening day they collected $7.00, which at that time was a considerable amount.

[ Page 7852 ]

I must add that this credit union also had a school program which went around to the schools and collected money and gave an example to the children on how to save for their own future and be responsible citizens.

We all know that credit unions were initiated so that working people could put their money somewhere where they could earn interest and at the same time help other working people with low-interest loans so others could have a good quality of life and at the same time have their capital work for their own future and their own retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this Legislature wish Powell River Credit Union and all the credit unions in B.C. success and prosperity for the next 50 years and congratulate them on their past 50 years.

The Social Credit government has been instrumental in helping the credit unions of B.C. on many different occasions. Two of the main things that the government has been involved with are the merger of the First Pacific Savings Credit Union and Westcoast Savings Credit Union to form a single new credit union which is stronger and more able to service the needs of its members as well as restore confidence throughout the credit union system; and in this session of the Legislature this government has put forward a bill, Bill 50, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, which shows the support for continued growth of the credit union movement.

[10:30]

The most significant measure within the June 1988 Credit Union Act was the establishment of a formal arrangement of government backing of B.C. credit union deposit insurance, enabling B.C. credit unions to compete more effectively with banks and other financial institutions whose deposits are insured by the federally backed Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

I'm proud of our government, of its involvement with the credit unions of B.C. I'm especially proud of all the people who have worked in the past to make credit unions what they are today. I take my hat off to those who are presently given the responsibility of carrying them on in the future.

MR. CLARK: It's a pleasure to rise and respond to this debate. I note that this is not the member for Powell River's maiden speech and it's not a ministerial statement, and yet he has a lectern and a prepared text. I just wondered who wrote the speech. We know that the government has an army of speechwriters, and we're used to the same cadence. I thought maybe it was the Social Credit research department.

We're pleased that the member's father was active in the credit union. We pay tribute to those who helped build the credit union movement. I might say that it's really the origins of our party, the predecessor to the NDP, the CCF, and many people, particularly in the prairies but also in B.C., who pioneered the credit union movement. We share in our movement, the NDP, the same roots as the credit union movement. So it's interesting that the Social Credit member for Powell River's father participated in that in early days. We pay tribute to them. It's unfortunate that he's a black sheep in the family, I guess, and has crossed the floor to the other side. Nevertheless we all pay tribute to the pioneers of the credit union movement.

I might say that this government has done some worthwhile things for the credit union movement. I might say also, though, that I don't think they've done enough.

I made some comments last night about the role the Quebec government has played with the caisses de dépôt in terms of promoting and strengthening the credit union movement. It's been a pale imitation that this government has pursued. It's not an aggressive or exciting role working with the credit unions to build them into a powerful, independent financial force. It's been rather tentative; nevertheless, steps in the right direction.

We on this side have strong roots in the credit union movement. We continue to support it. We support it in the House and we support it with our bank accounts. We're pleased that the member has chosen today to pay tribute to a particular credit union and their founders, and we also share in that tribute. We hope that, given the member's statements, he will join with us on this side of the House to push the government even further in the direction of enhancing and strengthening the credit union movement in British Columbia.

MR. LONG: The second member for Vancouver East said: "Who wrote the speech?" Well, I'll tell him now that I wrote the speech in its entirety.

I want to clear up a few things that the NDP and the socialists have missed here. When he was making his speech and referred to me as the black sheep and crossing the floor.... Let me tell you, we've got some major problems with the socialists in this country. We have a process now where the NDP have got political affinities. What does political affinities mean? It means hooking up with the big chartered banks, getting a special rate that the poor little guys in the credit union system can't get. That's what it means. In the true sense of the word it means marriage relationship, close relationship, a natural liking or sympathy. They like the big industrial banks. They're hooked to the Bank of Montreal. It's a conflict of interest. We have the huge banks infiltrating the political system of this country, and it's wrong that they would do this. They're the leaders, the ones that stand up for the working man and then get 1 percent less than he can at any given bank. That's pretty shoddy on the part of any political party, and I'll tell you the Social Credit Party and the Conservatives do not do that in Canada. It's the opposition that are doing it, and I think the time has come where we're going to have to do something about it at a legislative level.

The other thing I find is the connotation that the NDP at the federal level give contributions at the federal level, get a tax receipt and put the money to provincial, municipal and federal elections. They are the ones that are misusing the whole financial system

[ Page 7853 ]

of this country. They have no concern for the people in the credit union. They act a good act, but that's it. Good actors, good socialists — that's what you do best.

I think this is a conflict of interest. I think it's wrong. The NDP should withdraw their support of this, cancel their cards, tell the Bank of Montreal they don't want to take part in it, live up to what they're supposed to live up to or what they say they're supposed to live up to. I think they're wrong.

I'm going to ask our Premier to take our concerns as government forward at the western first ministers' conference and protest to the federal government about the political parties that are aligning themselves with the big institutions and big banks. The NDP have done this, and they've done it well. Not only do they get a cheaper interest rate, these people get a card, and every time they use it, it filters into their political system.

FIFTY YEARS A CANADIAN

MR. MERCIER: It's a privilege to present a private member's statement this morning. It's my fiftieth birthday next month, so I thought it was an appropriate time to reflect in this House of democracy, to focus on my personal political perspective as it relates to patriotism and multiculturalism.

What I said in moving the throne speech was that patriotism is more important than multiculturalism. Provincial funding for multiculturalism therefore should have a patriotic bent to it.

Before I get into that I would like at this time in my life to pay tribute to my mother, who, as a single parent raising three children, instilled certain beliefs in my formative years such as survival, respect for others, respect for this great country of ours, standing up for what you believe in, and patriotism. Growing up in this country as a child, I never thought about such things as Meech Lake, where the future constitutional strength of this country would hang on the selfish desires of a province or of certain groups to be treated specially. I never thought about multiculturalism, which, if properly managed, can strengthen through diversity, and if dealt with improperly, can lead to disastrous results.

Our country's history of dealing with certain immigrant groups has not been one to be proud of, but the situation has improved considerably. In this context, I want the Legislature to reflect on a statement the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) made about my views on multiculturalism and patriotism. He said I was a bigot. How absurd that statement was! A bigot is one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is wrong, as he often is in his assumptions. The key definitions are patriotism, which is love for or devotion to one's country, and then multiculturalism, which is the customary beliefs, social forms and material traits of a racial, religious or social group. Was the member demeaning patriotism? Does the member really believe that any single group is more important than the love or devotion to our country?

As the world is shrinking, due to enhanced transportation and communication, it is more important than ever that we assess how best to face the road ahead. We must stand for something as a country, not as an array of groups. Only by doing so will we be better prepared to welcome the hundreds of thousands from all parts of the world that will surely come to Canada in the coming years. To infer bigotry is a most scurrilous accusation, which is compounded when the member knows it to be false. He displayed his ignorance of my background. My Scottish immigrant grandfather, James Alexander Fraser, would have been offended. My unilingual French-Canadian grandfather would have been offended. My immigrant stepfather is amazed at such a statement.

Speaking of my stepfather, when I was a teenager, we welcomed him into our family. He was a political refugee from Czechoslovakia who fled communist oppression. He spoke very little English. He was a qualified machinist who, under the rule of the day, on his arrival in Canada, was required to work first as a farmhand, then as an underground hard-rock miner in the frozen Yukon, until some time later when he could practise his trade.

During my life I have participated with Canadians and non-Canadians from a multitude of ethnic origins in all the activities of life — sports, education, social activities, business, dates, politics and so on — and have never had the word "bigot" directed to me, until now.

True, our country in its emerging years mistreated a number of minority groups. It's appropriate now to refer to the treatment of one such group to illustrate how far we have come as a country. I want to relate the story of friends of mine, who are also business partners. Mr. Lambert Miles Sung came as a student to Canada in 1904. He became a teacher, and among other endeavours was an unofficial interpreter for the courts. You can imagine why the court work was important when you realize that his people had no vote and no status.

Although some laws were not explicitly directed against any particular racial group, they implied a de facto discrimination against the Chinese. For example, the Factory Act of 1922 forbade night employment in laundries and restricted the hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., excluding Sundays and holidays. Since Chinese hand-laundries operated long into the night, they were most affected by the law. Mr. Sung and his wife Elena had six sons and two daughters, all born in Canada. All the brothers went into produce or catering businesses and achieved personal satisfaction and business success.

Born in Canada, the children, as Chinese-Canadian adults, were not allowed to vote. They could be conscripted into the armed services; they were required to pay income and other taxes. But as with other minority groups, they could not vote. My friend Oliver Sung advises me that he first voted on a troop ship in the Mediterranean. You see, he had voluntarily joined the army to serve in the Second

[ Page 7854 ]

World War and was thereby entitled to vote. It was not until after the war, in 1947, that the inequities were corrected and Chinese-Canadians, as well as other groups which had been discriminated against, had the terrible laws struck down. Today there is a plaque at Sun Yat-sen Gardens, a tribute to many Chinese-Canadians like the Sung brothers — whose names are listed — in recognition by Canada.

The examples of our country's meanness are many. As recently as 1946, a land title in North Vancouver had registered against it a clause, which I quote: "The grantee will not sell the said land or any part thereof or any interest therein to any person of Chinese, Japanese, Negro or other Asiatic or Indian race." Hard to believe, isn't it? 1946.

Minority groups of all kinds were discriminated against, including the poor — something I had first-hand knowledge about as a child. Thankfully, Canada has come a long way in these past four decades.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up under the standing orders.

[10:45]

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a few brief comments in response to the statement of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and to talk about multiculturalism, the kind of country we live in and bigotry too. Sometimes in the heat of debate, labels and allegations are hurled and sometimes are less than accurate. Sometimes they do have a basis for truth. I can't judge in this particular case. I didn't hear the exchange, and I don't know what the views were. I don't presume to comment on it, other than to say that if the member asserts that he is not a bigot and that the comments being responded to were not bigoted, then I for one certainly take his word for that.

I think all of us try not to be bigoted or be racially motivated in our thinking, but if we are all honest with ourselves, I think that all of us at one time or another — because of our upbringing or patterns developed through life — do have values, attitudes or views that, upon really close examination or analysis, can be described as verging at least on bigotry or perhaps even racism.

I remember the very first time I saw a black person; I was in my teens. I had a hard time dealing with the whole question of someone of a different race. I tried to teach myself that we are equal, and that there are no differences among people of any racial or national background, but it's hard. It comes from our backgrounds.

The member talks about having been a Canadian for almost 50 years now. Like many members of the House, I am an immigrant. I didn't choose to come to the country, but my mother chose on my behalf, and we came. I am delighted she made that choice, and we came to a country that is rich in values, rich in its diversity and is unique in the world. I think many other countries around the world would be wise to have a look at this country in terms of dealing with unique issues.

The member made reference to one of those unique issues in his opening comments when he talked about how — and I have just taken rough notes of what he said — certain groups want to be treated specially. I think by that he meant that people who live in the province of Quebec want to be treated specially. I want to remind the member that he voted for the Meech Lake resolution that passed through this Legislature last year, which calls for a distinct society to preserve and promote the distinct nature of the Quebec society.

What people need to remember when they support that kind of legislation — which I am delighted the member did, and I did; most of us in this House did — is that the rest of us in this country who speak English, who come from an English background or one that has become English, even though it comes from many other parts of Europe and the rest of the world, already have that kind of special status. We already have that uniqueness, and we have no problem preserving and promoting — to take the words out of the Meech Lake accord — our culture, our languages and our values. We are dominant. We represent two-thirds or more of this country and, as a result of that, have very little difficulty in preserving and promoting our culture and our language. But those people who speak French, who come from the French culture, who live primarily but not exclusively in the province of Quebec have a great deal of difficulty.

Five or six million in a continent of 250 million have a great deal of difficulty in promoting their uniqueness and their distinctness. As a result of that, constitutional accords are sought and are reached to allow for that kind of diversity. That makes this country richer. I think it is good for us to live in a country that is dual in its language and culture and is multi in its diversity. We represent and reflect a wide variety of nationalities and ethnic and racial groups from around the world, and that is good.

We do not have the American model of the melting-pot, which I think is a wrong model. We have a model which encourages everyone to preserve and promote their own ethnic background, their own culture and their own languages. I see my time is up. Thank you.

MR. MERCIER: I appreciate the comments by the member, and I regret that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) isn't at this session today. Let us not dwell on the negatives of the past. As my friend Oliver Sung said: "Time heals everything."

The country was built by those with individual backbone and perseverance. That is what gives the collective strength to Canada. That is the root of our pride. It's the dedication to their new country; strong families with the collective will to succeed in a new country, but not at the expense of maintaining pride in their cultural heritage.

But there must be an understanding on the part of those arriving that when a Canadian needs help,

[ Page 7855 ]

when a new arrival needs help, it is not given because of the race, ethnic origin or religion of the individual, but simply because the individual needs help.

It's not unusual in this country for our Premier, a Dutch immigrant gardener, and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), a Canadian-born lawyer, with roots in another culture, to have a feisty debate, as they did a few days ago, on which lineage had a more important role in Canada's development. This is precisely what Canada is about: each individual free to speak and proud to be Canadian, each in his own way. Almost all Canadians came to this country from somewhere. In fact, the evidence is that historically our first Canadians did also. When I look across the House to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I don't see, as he described himself, an Indo-Canadian; I see a Canadian, educated, a lawyer and an elected member of the Legislature, perhaps not fully exposed to but somewhat incubated from some of the harsher realities of life. But he is reflective on the adversity of those who came before him, and justifiably so.

What I will not accept from the member are his incorrect assumptions about my view of society. The member's statement promoted divisiveness, I think, for political gain. He has erred in commenting on my views before, and he was absolutely wrong again to suggest that I have views which border on bigotry. His comments in this House have implied there is a bigot under every bed, and that is simply not true in this country. I am a patriot, and I'll stand by my statement. I'm dedicated to the continuance of the individual rights and obligations of each and every person in our great country. I'll expect an apology from the member at his convenience.

CHILD POVERTY

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about the new prosperity in B.C., about the renewed mood of optimism that's sweeping the province and about British Columbians feeling more secure about the years ahead. This government tells us that it has created a climate of confidence and security for the future. Certainly there has been an upswing in the world's economy, and we in British Columbia are benefiting from it. For those who share in this economic recovery, life is good. These people have full employment, material abundance and personal fulfilment, and that too is good.

But there's another side of British Columbia, a side that's largely hidden and a side that this government appears to have chosen to ignore: the British Columbia of unemployment or of underemployment at wages below the poverty line; the British Columbia of food banks, thrift shops and substandard, inadequate, overpriced housing; the British Columbia where personal freedom is lost in the daily struggle to make ends meet and where choices tend to become limited to deciding whether to pay the rent or whether to buy food. Mr. Speaker, I'm describing the British Columbia of more than 13 percent, or 100,000 families, and of more than 20 percent of our children.

Let's not forget that we're talking about a wealthy province, one of the wealthiest in the country; yet we have growing numbers of poor people, especially children. The gap between the wealthy and those less well off has grown faster in the last ten years than in any other decade in our history.

You people on the other side of the House keep telling us about how well we're doing, about how healthy the British Columbia economy is and about how prosperous we are. Yet according to the Canadian Council on Social Development, British Columbia is the only province in Canada where poverty has worsened since 1973. Statistics Canada shows that every province in this country has seen a significant decrease in the percentage of children living in poverty — that is, every province except British Columbia, where we've seen a significant increase in the number of children living in poverty.

We have a significant increase, and yet this government appears to have chosen to turn a blind eye to poverty in B.C. It chooses to be blind to the fact that over 20 percent of our kids, because they are poor, are twice as likely to get sick, and when they do, to stay sick longer. They're ten times as likely to be involved in an accident. When these poor kids are hospitalized, they stay there four times as long. This government appears to be blind to the fact that poor kids are twice as likely to die and twice as likely to have a low birth weight or to be born prematurely, and that these same kids have a much higher risk of various disabilities and learning problems throughout their lives. The government appears to be blind to the fact that poor kids are far more likely to end up in the child welfare system, in foster homes and in correctional institutions. They are blind to the fact that poor kids are more likely to become the school dropouts, the unemployed youth, the street kids of today and then the GAIN recipients and prison inmates of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we have legislation in B.C. that defines very clearly what constitutes child abuse. Those laws state clearly — I'm quoting from the government's handbook on child abuse — that "failure on the part of those responsible for the care of the child to provide for the physical, emotional or medical needs of a child to an extent that a child's health, development or safety is endangered" constitutes child abuse.

If we keep in mind the effects of poverty on 20 percent of our children, and if we consider the fact that this government — those people on the other side of the House — set the welfare rates that are well below the poverty line and set the minimum wage rates that also are well below the poverty line, then we can perhaps have some understanding of why many of the people who deal with the evidence, work in the system, deal with those children, read the studies and write the studies are beginning to come to the conclusion — and they can be forgiven for this — that this government is the biggest child abuser in the province.

[ Page 7856 ]

The consequences of child poverty are many and severe, and we can't afford that poverty. We can't afford it in human terms, social terms or economic terms. Our children are our future and our most valuable resource, yet over 20 percent of them remain at risk. We can't afford the social and economic costs of child abuse, neglect, family breakdown, violence, crime, alcoholism, suicide — the list goes on — which many studies show are the result of poverty.

This government endorses those things that create and continue poverty, and then it blames the victims. Poverty is unacceptable anywhere, but it's particularly offensive in British Columbia, one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada. To those of us on this side of the House and to 20 percent of British Columbia's children and 100,000 families, this government's rhetoric about British Columbia's newfound prosperity and security rings hollow indeed.

[11:00]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's good to hear the member opposite say that there's a recognition on that side of the House as well that we've come a long way in this province as far as the economy is concerned, and that we're enjoying perhaps the most buoyant, most diverse and strongest economy in the whole of the country. Certainly much of that has happened in the last two or two and a half years We're all very grateful for that. I'm pleased that the initiatives of government and the philosophy of government have been much a part of all of this happening.

But I hear the member say as well that still there are those who suffer from poverty, and that somehow this could all be addressed if we were to increase welfare rates and the minimum wage much beyond what they are today; somehow this would cure it all and we would no longer have poverty or children or families in need.

Frankly, I suppose it's fair to say that we've seen this attitude previously in other countries that felt they could somehow isolate themselves behind a curtain of sorts and say: "If we isolate ourselves and apply the philosophy we hold, then we can do all things for all people and have everyone equal and eliminate poverty and eliminate the need for things." They've tried that in some places, and the results have been lineups at food stores and people doing without, and still there are those in government particularly who do very well but ordinary people suffer by it. So there is no perfect solution. This has been discovered by other isms elsewhere in the world.

I'm happy, however, that in our province we have prosperity, the economy is going well and things are developing in a way where we're able to assist more and more people. In evidence of this are the recent announcements made by government with respect to day care and assisting families with severely disabled children. All of that is because we are enjoying a prosperous time in our province.

The critics equate child poverty with a lack of family income, and they say a lack of family income is really what it is or why it is. They use the poverty line as the income level. There really is no problem in B.C. with respect to that. I'd like to give some figures that were given me by the Ministry of Social Services. The poverty lines are made up in two parts: cost of basic needs, 58.5 percent; other needs, recreation, etc., 41.5 percent. The 1988 statistics, Canada poverty line, city over 500,000, family of three is: basic needs, $11,950; other needs net per year, $6,873, for a total of $18,823. In B.C., for a family with two children and one parent, the basic income assistance plus family allowance and child tax credit, not counting medical, dental or other allowances, is $13,210 per year. That's much above the poverty line that has been established in Canada. The potential with GAIN benefits, family allowance and child tax credit and enhanced earning exemptions is $18,138 per year.

It is more likely that oftentimes it's neglect of a child that is viewed as poverty by the public. I think we all bear some responsibility in that. I'm not saying this is solely a family or a parental....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're not listening. I'm saying it's not necessarily and solely a family or a parental responsibility; we all have a responsibility in that.

I'd like to give an example. I can recall that not so long ago in this House the members opposite were calling for the free lunch program — for lack of a better word. Recently, a survey done by the Canadian Education Association was reported in the Globe and Mail entitled: "Children's Lunch Bags Full of Junk Food By Choice, Not Necessity, School Finds." The report states in part: "Many children are poorly nourished not necessarily as a result of poverty. More often than not it is a lack of parental training or caring." So I'm saying there is....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the Premier that his time is up under standing orders.

MS. PULLINGER: I find it fascinating to stand here and listen to the Premier of British Columbia defending those policies and those inadequacies on the part of this government that perpetuate poverty in this province.

Last week in Nanaimo we had a child poverty forum. This was the third one in British Columbia, and there are more to come. This forum in Nanaimo, I would like to point out, is in direct reaction to this government's callous attempt last fall to take $50 away from single mothers' already inadequate incomes. It was a non-political forum, if you like, put on by people living in poverty and by various professionals in the community.

I find it amazing that one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada is having a series of forums about child poverty. I want to tell this House what these people concluded. And let's not forget that these are the people who are living with it and the people who are dealing with it, such as health

[ Page 7857 ]

professionals, child psychologists, school counsellors, parents and children. They concluded that the causes of poverty are political and that solutions to poverty are political. They sent recommendations to the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), and I want to read into the record some of the key recommendations of that forum.

They recommended that we bring back the rentalsman with power to control rent increases. They recommended that we make affordable housing a priority. They recommended that we recognize that raising children and looking after a home is, in fact, work, and that we pay people who do that. They recommended that we run adequately funded non-profit day care centres to look after children. We have 60,000 kids who are left alone. They recommended that we acknowledge that people on welfare have a right to a standard of living above the poverty line. They recommended that we redistribute wealth. They recommended a school lunch program and a school health care program.

Clearly, what I hear from the response of the Premier of this province is that he's just as out of touch as he always has been, and that he doesn't understand — and doesn't care.

I was impressed with the dialoguing with seniors that's happening. I would suggest strongly to this government that they need to go out and talk to people to find out what it's all about. I would suggest that they go to the next child poverty forum and find out what the problems are, what the ramifications of poverty are, the damage that poverty is doing to our children and to us as a society, and then make some changes in their policies.

Presenting Reports

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services. I move the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: "June 23, 1989. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as follows: that the preamble to Bill PR402, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill as amended in committee proceed to second reading. All of which is respectfully submitted. Austin Pelton, Chairman."

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I move the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I call committee on Bill 29.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: I won't re-debate much of what we canvassed in estimates, but maybe the minister could tell me the significance of this retroactive clause.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This amendment — that is to say, section 1 — requires that a transfer from the general fund to the budget stabilization fund shall be deemed to have been made on the last day of the fiscal year in which the surplus revenues were received, rather than on the date of the order-in-council which affects the transfer.

This amendment also requires that any income generated on the transferred funds shall start to be earned on the deemed date of transfer rather than on the date of the accounting transfer.

The amendment is retroactive to March 31, 1988, in order to provide consistent accounting and reporting for each fiscal year.

MR. CLARK: So it's to keep the paperwork on the paper fund accurate, essentially. I assume that there's a deemed interest rate on it as well.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We use market rates.

Section 1 approved on division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the interests of expediency, perhaps the critic of this bill could tell me which sections he's interested in.

MR. CLARK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any glaring concerns, but I would like to just canvass a few, so maybe you could move through each one.

On section 2.

MR. CLARK: I would like the minister to explain why this amendment to the Company Act is required.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Under the Company Act, section 19(3) requires that par-value shares and non-par-value shares be distinct classes of shares and that non-par-value shares have special capital or dividend rates attached to them by the company's memorandum of articles. The amendment eliminates the latter requirement. Incorporations are frequently delayed because share rights have not been specified. The amendment recognizes that the determination of rights for different share classes should be left to the company's discretion and eliminates this source of delay in the incorporation process.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7858 ]

On section 5.

MR. CLARK: I was interested in the significance of this, which, while it appears not to be too significant, does seem to reduce the information available in terms of the number of directors. Maybe the minister could explain it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: In our effort to simplify the whole process, we have attempted to eliminate redundancies.

Section 137(2) of the Company Act is amended here to eliminate the requirement that resolutions setting the number of directors be filed with the corporate registry. As other information required to be filed with the registry includes notice of the appointment of directors and notice of the removal or resignation of directors, the requirement that resolutions setting the number of directors be filed is extraneous. Its elimination will help reduce paperwork for both corporations and the registry.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. CLARK: The next few sections deal with the Education (Interim) Finance Act, and again this appears to be a positive amendment which advances the dates. I just wonder what the rationale is, particularly. I guess it can be dealt with as a group of amendments.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This amendment is required because in previous years some school districts have been late in passing their bylaws and school tax rates.

[11:15]

MR. CLARK: So this tries to make them move it up, so that if they're late they'll conform with what you want to begin with. Is that what it is?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's right. We were finding that the timeliness of issuing tax notices was in jeopardy, and this will ensure sufficient time for the production of the rural-area property tax notices within the statutory May 31 deadline.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. CLARK: Again, I know this advances a date, but is this a consequential amendment or does this deal with industrial property that now is in the hands of the province?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's the non-residential property that's targeted with this change.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

MR. CLARK: This is kind of an interesting little amendment. It says in the explanatory notes: "Allows tax notices to be provided in a form that may be directly read by a taxpayer's computer." I wonder if the minister could explain that to me.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This is an effort to recognize the changes that are being brought about by technology, particularly with large corporate clients. More and more data is transmitted electronically, and the existing legislation has the effect of forcing us to mail notices which are superfluous and unnecessary.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

MR. CLARK: Perhaps the minister could explain this particular amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This section amends the definition of "return of claim" in section 1(1) of the International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act and is consequential to the change made in section 23 of this bill. "Return of claim" now means the return in the form set by, and containing the information required by, the commissioner of income tax instead of a form prescribed by regulation.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

MR. CLARK: Again, I'm interested in this particular amendment. Did it arise to remedy the situation where residents appear to be trying to take advantage of the International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I suppose a similar explanation would apply here in the sense that the present declaration requirement is impractical and is in many cases an unnecessary obstacle to financial activity in British Columbia.

Sections 19 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 7859 ]

HON. MR- REE: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 50.

CREDIT UNION INCORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: I am prepared to let this bill go through very quickly, but I would like some brief discussion of the question of equity shares, which I believe starts with section 44. If we could go 1 to 43, and then we can proceed to section 44.

Sections 1 to 43 inclusive approved.

On section 44.

MR. CLARK: I take the guidance of the minister on this. This section appears to be the start of the equity share consideration. I would be interested in the minister's briefing notes on this particular section 44, just for the record. This is a new area we're allowing credit unions to embark on. It's one which I support. I gather the minister shares my concerns about the principle of the credit union, so I would just like to have him canvass, if we could, these changes for the record now. Then we can proceed with passing the bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This section requires that credit unions establish a mandatory equity share purchase requirement for the members and sets out the parameters within which membership shares are to be issued and held. This requirement strengthens the underlying cooperative principles of the credit union system by requiring members, who democratically control their credit union, to have an equity stake in their credit union. It will also help to increase the capital base of credit unions.

I can give detailed comments on the various subsections, but I don't sense that it's the member's desire. Perhaps that explanation is sufficient.

MR. CLARK: Well, I am just a little interested in how that works — the mandatory share purchase Does it mean that, effective 1991 or whenever it is, there will be five dollars deducted from everybody's bank account in the credit unions and rolled into a new equity share? Is that essentially how it works?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The bill envisages the credit unions setting their own rules, so that they can design their own system and figure out how they wish to go about raising the equity that they might desire.

MR. CLARK: It seems to me that there are different classes. There are the membership shares, and then there are the auxiliary members' or non-members' purchase of what I'm terming — and the minister can correct me if he wants — preferred shares, which contain no voting rights except for on resolutions which affect those shares. So this is a distinct, different class of equity share, as I understand it. If the minister could clear that up for me....

It's my understanding that there is the membership share, which is a form of equity share and which is mandatory — that's five shares or whatever — and then there is another class of equity shares, which I'm calling — and I'd like to know if this is a correct interpretation — preferred shares, essentially, which contain no voting rights, except for on resolutions which impact on the value of those shares. Is that a fair characterization of the two distinct equity shares which we're now issuing in this bill?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we had a bit of this dance last evening. I am reluctant to embrace with great fervour a definition that isn't contained in the act. The membership shares are the mandatory component when someone joins the credit union. The equity shares are the optional component, and it's up to each individual credit union to determine the desirability and amounts and structure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, the member for Coquitlam-Moody has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: I'm grateful to the House, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to introduce from my riding 23 grade 7 students and several adults, who are here from Mary Hill Elementary School. I'd be pleased if the House would welcome them.

MR. CLARK: Is it fair to say that the mandatory share purchase is not really going to enhance the equity base of the credit unions; it's the auxiliary shares that the credit unions themselves are going to determine?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, that's a fair summation, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 44 to 110 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 50, Credit Union Incorporation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. REE: I call committee on Bill 36.

[ Page 7860 ]

NEW WESTMINSTER

REDEVELOPMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the bill be amended in section 4(1)(a) as follows: by deleting "in place of a permit" and substituting therefore "in place of a development permit."

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 36, New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989, read a third time and passed.

[11:30]

HON. MR. REE: Committee on Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION

AND CULTURE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. Is this not on the order paper yet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's not. Do you have a copy there?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be amended in the proposed section 7(5): (a) in paragraph (a) by deleting "section 6(1)(a)" and substituting "section 6(2)(a) "; and (b) in paragraph (b) by deleting "section 6(1)(b) to (d) " and substituting "section 6(2)(b) to (d)."

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: We have trouble deciphering some of these amendments even when they're on the order paper, but suddenly reading them to us cold gives us....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no. We cannot trust you sometimes.

I wonder whether the minister could explain the meaning of this amendment.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: My deputy suggests to me that these are cross-references that were done in error by legislative counsel.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the section which I gave notice to the minister that I would like some clarification on. It's my understanding that the act is amended to allow councils to give paid or volunteer fire brigades the responsibility for fire prevention and suppression and providing assistance in response to other classes of circumstances specified in the bylaw that may cause harm to persons or property.

Section 7 refers to fire departments. Currently my understanding is that — Mr. Chairman, just bear with me because some of this stuff is quite complicated — if a fire department uses some of its equipment in a rescue operation, it's eligible to receive some reimbursement from the provincial emergency fund for that use or for any damage that might occur. If a fire department is explicitly assigned the extra duties mentioned in this act, will they still be eligible for the reimbursement for rescue work, or will they have to fund the entire program themselves?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, there would be no change in the funding. The purpose here is to deal with liability and to clarify the fact that there are many responsibilities and activities undertaken by fire departments — rescue, vehicle accident response, hazardous waste spills, anything — not just firefighting. There is no change, as far as this legislation is

[ Page 7861 ]

concerned, with funding, and it is to deal strictly with liability.

MR. BLENCOE: Are there specific classes of circumstances that the minister has in mind to deal with in this section? Has something occurred, or has there been some changes that spark the need for this section?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, apparently this has been brought forward as a result of requests for clarification to ensure that the liability protection of section 755.1 covers all of the fire department duties, not just firefighting.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm just trying to get a few more questions on this.

It's my understanding through research — and maybe the minister can clarify — that what you're doing is giving the fire departments the ability to help in extended circumstances. For instance, I know that in my community, as in others, sometimes we get flooded basements, and this would allow fire departments to help pump out flooded basements, chlorine spills and that sort of thing. Is that what the minister has in mind? Are you covering the possibility of being sued for performing duties out of their area? Is that the nub of the issue?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to canvass something again here. I have a note here — and the minister may have answered this, but I'm not sure — which says that this section allows the provincial government to get out of funding these services for municipalities with this type of bylaw. Is that accurate? No connection?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, this doesn't relate to funding at all.

MR. BLENCOE: It has nothing to do with funding at all. Okay, Mr. Chairman, that's fine.

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 38, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 38, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR REE: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 56.

MINES ACT

HON. MR. DAVIS: This bill and this legislation replaces the existing Mines Act. It deals with safety in the workplace, namely at the mine sites, and with improved methods of reclamation — in other words, better environmental protection. It gives greater powers to the mines inspectors in the field. It establishes, with greater force, committees at the mine site made up of union representatives, management and the inspectors.

It also authorizes the establishment of a code of operations, which will be expressed in plain English and will be available in small booklet form to all employees and management, so that they know what their rights are and what concerns they should have about the safety and environmental cleanliness of the operations. The new act, in all its detail, and the code which is now drafted have been vetted both by management in the mining industry and by the unions involved. All parties endorse this new legislation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: It's a pleasure to be able to stand up and applaud the minister's activities leading up to the introduction of this new Mines Act. I understand that the consultation process was fairly extensive. As the minister said, there was fairly general agreement on what has gone into the act. Before this came up, there were some concerns about safety that I'm told are addressed in the new act. We are always in favour of any measures which grant to the mine workers a greater degree of safety to whatever extent that can be done. Of course, we favour any move toward requirements for better reclamation.

As the minister mentioned in a couple of the statements, if you put them together, it looks generally as if some of the processes of establishing safety and seeing that it's there will go more to the people in the field. We also applaud that particular direction, as well as codifying exactly what the requirements are and the rights and responsibilities of the various parties to the activities that are going on.

Generally, I believe there is little to oppose in the principle of this bill. It's a very good one. We expect to be looking very carefully at the clauses, but the idea of it is something we very much support.

[ Page 7862 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think there's general agreement in the industry, management and labour that this is an improvement in the Mines Act — the mines legislation — as it relates to safety on the job and environmental protection.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 56, Mines Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REE: I call second reading of Bill 57, Mr. Speaker.

MINING RIGHT OF WAY ACT

HON. MR. DAVIS: This legislation is aimed specifically at resolving a particular dispute, although there have been other disputes of this nature in the past. The Cheni mining company has built a mining road with government approval and indeed with a 50 percent government loan in northern B.C. Cheni is in the process of repaying the loan. I simply mention the loan, because the government has an involvement of an unusual character. Cheni has been permitting other mining companies and prospectors to use the road, but has been charging what they regard as an exorbitant fee. They have appealed to the government for access to the road. This legislation essentially sets up an arbitration process which will allow others to use a mining road or an access road built by one party, giving that party the protection of some fee for use but, nevertheless, allowing other third parties to use the mining right-of-way.

So essentially the legislation addresses a particular category of problem in the mining industry, but it does clarify access to mining properties generally. The arbitration will be carried out by the same people who have been arbitrating other disputes. For example, in the oil and gas country, it's an established body which brings some professionalism to the process.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[11:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I would have to tell the minister that it seemed to us that the incident that sparked this bill needed to be answered. When we have a road, we have to ensure that it's available for being a road. Just looking at this makes people remember, over history, the disputes over access to roads. It's extremely important. So if we can find a reasonable and rational way for deciding and allocating the reasonable costs of a road and allowing access to everyone who we can decide should have access, I think that will be a very laudable outcome of the bill. We probably will have some questions in committee but the idea, the principle, seems to us to be worth support.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, members are advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank members opposite for their support. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 57, Mining Right of Way Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 52, the Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENTS ACT, 1989

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring forward Bill 52, the Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989 for second reading. In the next hour, there will be 15 accidents and five injuries in the province of British Columbia, and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will pay out over $100,000 in claims. I don't believe there's a family in the province that hasn't had a relative, a neighbour, a friend or an acquaintance killed or injured in a motor vehicle accident. We must curb this unnecessary, senseless tragedy caused by careless driving.

As I've indicated on many occasions over the last few months, I am taking steps necessary to improve our driving habits and make our highways a safer place for all road users. The Motor Vehicle Amendments Act indicates a strong stand being taken by the government on traffic safety and is part of the overall traffic safety program. This amendment act introduces traffic fines for moving offences. It is clear that the system of penalty points, by itself, is not a sufficient deterrent to unlawful driving habits. Traffic rule or moving offences are those such as running red lights and speeding. These types of actions endanger everyone on the road and increase the cost of insurance for all of us.

It is possible this initiative may result in greater costs to municipalities because of police attending as court witnesses. However, we have been consulting with UBCM and will be working with them to monitor any additional costs incurred and to discuss with them a means of compensating them.

The amount of fines will be the same as that set out for ticket information which is issued to out-of-province drivers. Examples are $75 for speeding and unsafe lane changes, $50 for a failure to dim headlights, and $35 for a failure to wear your seatbelt. These fines will not replace penalty points, which will continue to be assigned as part of the motor vehicle branch driver improvement program, and as the basis of the driver penalty point premium program used by ICBC.

The bill also contains minor administrative changes to the Motor Vehicle Act. Consequential

[ Page 7863 ]

amendments are required to reflect changes in numbering under the Criminal Code.

The imposition of traffic fines represents a major traffic safety initiative that will send a strong message to the motoring public that unsafe driving practices are not acceptable. Traffic fines will act as a significant deterrent to bad drivers and make British Columbia roads and highways safer for all our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. GUNO: I want to respond briefly to second reading of this bill. I don't think that we on this side of the House have any problems in supporting this important step, which is, I guess, addressing the considerable mayhem on the highways and the consequent cost in terms of dollars and injury and death. If it is going to be a deterrent to unsafe driving, then I think it's timely, but I hope that we go beyond that and start stressing driver education and even stiffer sentences to more dangerous driving offences. But I think this addresses the problem adequately.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. MOWAT: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: On behalf of the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), I am very pleased to welcome to the Legislative Assembly today 65 grade 7 students and their teacher Mr. Schonewille, and many adults who are travelling with them to visit the buildings today. They are from Sir Alexander Mackenzie Elementary School in Vancouver, and I'd ask the House to make these students extremely welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. REE: I welcome the comments by my critic from the opposition. The government may lead and put down rules with respect to traffic safety, but traffic safety will only be accomplished on our highways when the users of those highways use them responsibly — the driver, the pedestrian and the cyclist. We can only provide leadership; it's up to the general public to provide traffic safety.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Ree moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.